Getting irrationality angry over new SpongeBob again

Ok so weird thing: Puppet Zelda. I mean, it was pretty obvious as a player Imo? But what I don't get: The tears show her ONCE! and it's the scene right before Ganondorf gives Sonia a backbreaking back massage. It's alluded to that she (he) did some other weird stuff to mess up for Sonia and Rauru, and it's not expanded upon at all. I was so put off by that, because it feels like that would have been a big chance for ACTUAL character development for ALL the characters from the past. What did P-Z do? Where was Ganondorf? Was he hidden, or was he inside the castle? How did Sonia react to it? How did Rauru react to it? How did Sonia catch on? Why was it only Sonia and Zelda confronting P-Z? Why wasn't Rauru somewhere hidden as well? I doubt Rauru would have dismissed such a serious accusation. Sonia confronts P-Z, Zelda comes out, then Rauru lies in wait to check for extra danger. The time it takes for Rauru to arrive also kinda makes me think he wasn't that far away? P-Z is a cool concept, but I'm still just so baffled by the absolute "non-story" they built by alluding to her bullshit.

Okay so. Yeah. I completely, 100% agree, and I want to use the opportunity to air out a very particular complaint I have not really seen a lot of people talk about, because I just rewatched that scene and I am shocked all over again.

The teacup scene, after Ganondorf submits, is, in my opinion, horrendous. Like not because of secret Problematisms (though yes also this, we just saw them asking their enemies to kneel and the very next scene they're having a little tea party with cake between royals while armed guards protect them and it's not supposed to be a red flag and it's wild to me), but because the actual writing, at a craft level, reads like a first draft at best. There are three narrative information beats that matter in this entire scene:

The war has stopped

Zelda wants to help her ancestors and not only return to her own era (??? okay, she already did and the problems are technically over already as far as they know??? and it's not a choice she's making since she still can't master her powers and never learn to btw)

Rauru learns Link's name

I'd argue the only real important thing is that Rauru learns Link's name, and it could have been done in a much more interesting and dynamic way.

Instead the scene just goes on and on with lore dumps that never go anywhere, reiterations of the bond between Zelda and Sonia we had already established, dialogue that is... shockingly bad...

Actually, let's examine just one case: "Ah. I can see that you have absolute faith in him."

Like, just, general pro-tip: if you use "I can see that X" in dialogue and it's not ironic or used as de-escalation and just there to reiterate what we have just immediately established, cut that line. It's doing nothing, it's dead weight, it's just grinding the pace of a scene to a halt for no reason (unless you want it to be about stagnation, like I could see a David Lynch dinner scene where every character restate each other's actions by saying "I can see that you really like the gravy." over and over but it's not.... very applicable to more generic situations). This is writing 101, and the scene is full of these nothing sentences that go nowhere and establish nothing about the characters or the world and set up nothing and pay off nothing and it's driving me wild!

(also it does my least favorite thing in game writing aka the game praising the player character for an unreasonable amount of time, but I realize this is a pet peeve and not as important but it always makes me roll my eyes incredibly hard when it's not earned and it wasn't earned or useful here, the fact that the scene ends on everyone being like yaaay link!!! is... completely disconnected from the actual story happening in the past and shouldn't be the focus of the characters at that moment --it would be more powerful if Zelda used Link as an image of strength to inspire Rauru after Sonia's death later, for example)

It's a scene that completely undermines the tension built in the previous memory, makes the timeline of events confusing, and it leaves a ton of questions open, like: where the hell is Ganondorf? What is he doing? What did Rauru mean by "keeping him close", if he isn't actually close? Do they think he returned to the gerudo lands while he actually stayed hidden in their palace to do his Puppet Zelda shenanigans? I don't know! There is no way to know, because we're being told about teacups and how Link is amazing instead of anything relevant to the plot!

So yeah. Would have *gladly* done away with that teacup scene and focused more on a very tense moment of Sonia and Puppet Zelda where she acts very suspiciously and maybe aborts a first attempt at stealing the stone that goes nowhere, and this is when Sonia catches on that something is off? Honestly, I would also have killed for an actual scene of tension between Zelda and Ganondorf where they, like. Talk to each other. Instead of this actual current version of the story where they never do. And maybe this is how he realizes that she has a special connection with Sonia and it's how he tries to get her.

But yeah. Sorry, I kind of hijacked the ask into a "this damn teacup scene!!!" *shakes my first at clouds*, but I think it mirrors the thought that priorities were not given to the actual tension points laid down in the story. Puppet Zelda inherently calls upon ideas of fear of imposture, of abuse of power, of insecurity, of a twisted version of what Hyrule *could* be, which is so interesting and ripe with conflict and counterpoints.

I would have done unruly things for a Zelda arc where she is struggling to be a ruler and she's still very insecure and wrecked by guilt over the Calamity thing and feel disconnected from the land because of the whole "being locked 100 years away fighting a demon" thing and her daddy issues, and this is this insecurity that Ganondorf picks up on and preys on by trying to dismantle Hyrule using her very image as he plans his Big Comeback, and our role is to unite all of Hyrule against this weird nasty caricature of her created by an envious man who was furious to see his rule rejected and his rebellion considered less important than peace, then go to her acknowledging the immense and unjust sacrifice she made becoming a dragon and being like "hey Zelda we all love you and we will all fight for you because we made the choice to believe in the future you want to build" and it would have been soososo powerful and I would have perhaps shed a tear or two or ten. ;_;

hi I’ve been waiting for species to come up in here, and now that it has, hold on to your asses boys we’re going for a ride

it’s another long one, sorry, but I’m very passionate about the species debate and whether or not you agree with me, you can’t say I’m wrong with some of these points

firstly, species are various ‘hybrids’ or evolutionized/mutated subversions of cats that are commonly found around amino. sometimes they’re simply cats with odd traits that serve no real purpose and were mainly created for aesthetic. some more popular species include delicats, mermyxns, and slimetails. each species has traits that are specific to their genes, although MOST (not all) have the same base traits (horns, wings, steam, fish tails, spikes, random inanimate objects as tails, socks, bandaids, unnatural whiskers, antennae, glass body parts, liquidated body parts, etc).

species really got big upon the first notable creation of warriors species called slimetails back in late 2018/early 2019. the cats featured various colored, themed, textured and substanced tails made from slime after radioactivity consumed the clans homes and resulted in the genetic mutation. they grew very popular very quickly as they were, and are, an open original species. from there, species quickly took off with the members of WA, and with no regulations about who could make them and how you went about doing so, they were quickly overwhelming. well, maybe overwhelming isn’t the right term. the community absolutely ate up the prospect of unnatural, oftentimes irrelevant, cats with pretty features and levels of trait rarity. they’re still a very popular aspect of WA today.

and in today’s standards, they are oftentimes associated with a users level of “popularity.” although this is definitely not the case with all species owners and affiliates, no one can deny that the only reason some members are popular is because of their status as creators, GA’s, or fervent members of that species communities. now, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does tend to rile small bouts of drama in some cases. luckily, they usually remain off of WA, or at least out of the BIG drama category of WA. but there is plenty of drama associated with species nonetheless.

firstly, there is the matter of relevancy that needs to be addressed within species. although the LT did reform their guidelines to ensure that all species do have some form of relation to the warriors books in their lore, we haven’t seen much of a change. in order to “abide” by this new guidelines, many species creators simply said that the cats in their species could be found living in clans either in the wild, on their own accord, or as a whole. WITHOUT altering their lore as required. that’s all fine and dandy. but how does it derive species from the books? well. it doesn’t. because in order for a species to be truly relevant to the warriors fandom, they must have descended DIRECTLY from one of the five clans in the books, or a tribe. rogues and loners, while apart of the series, have never been found to go off and create their own clan(s) for the fun of it. and we have no reason to believe that would change in the series. even the Skyclan cats didn’t reform Skyclan for shits and giggles. they were influenced by clan cats and received prophetic dreams from Starclan cats that basically guilt tripped them into doing this really random thing that they otherwise wouldn’t have even known of.

so, in all technicality, rogue/loner species derivatives do not pertain to the books. in order for a species to be genuinely, unquestionably relevant to warriors they need to either be mutated/evolved counterparts to the clans/tribe, or they need to, by direct lineage, be related to the original clan cats. of course no one expects you to go draw up a family tree on how your flying monkey cats have someone come from Firestar the Greats bloodline. but simply saying so isn’t enough. if they’re truly relevant to the books, then species owners need to add it. to. the lore. yeah, that guideline has already been passed. but it was not followed efficiently. your quirky cats with a clan/tribe hierarchy or something similar to such does not make them relevant. fix the damn lore like the guidelines originally stated. oh, and sorry to break it to you, but this means that your mythical god-like cats, your robo-cats, and your human object cats are immediately out of the running for relevancy. I can see how wings might have some semblance of realistism, but your sparkly candle tailed cats or cats who grow moss in cute little bubbles serve no evolutionary purpose and wouldn’t have any possibility of existing within the warriors universe.

now, onto the next topic of relevancy: evolution. some people say that cats developing fish tails or wings defies the laws of evolution. it probably does. but then again, we are dealing with four territorial cult cats who are very religious and, on occasion, will fight ghost cats and lose so. I’m actually defending species on this part, but don’t get used to it. because in all honesty, who are we to defy the lengths that evolution will go to? we didn’t expect fish to grow legs, but here we are. who’s to say that in this hypothetical universes cats can’t evolve to accommodate wings? don’t get me wrong, I hate the idea of it, but it isn’t COMPLETELY unreasonable.

next on the agenda, we have attribute individuality. granted, there are only so many different ways to make your species unique and really genuinely original, seeing the same handful of base traits repeat themselves in multiple different species (that could honestly just be considered one species altogether) does get old. there are not infinite options for creating a species that is going to be genuinely relevant in some remote aspect, and at some point people need to realize its time to stop. new species sprout up on what seems like a monthly basis on several occasions. and, although they don’t always get big, they still hold a place in clogging the latest feed. specifically with their borderline unacceptably irrelevant adopts. species really test the limits in relevancy, and so do adopts, but that’s for another day. and I’m not saying adopts are bad, so don’t single that out from this entire confess.

there’s another thing. species adopts. they’re constantly flooding the latest feed and drowning out actual warriors/oc related content. “it’s not your place to tell people what they should and shouldn’t post!” yeah, no dip. that’s not what I’m doing. I’m simply expressing my grievances with the amount of UNBEARABLY absurd species adopts that are constantly being uploaded and sold. and pricing? yeesh, that’s also for another day. but I am, again, not blatantly telling anyone to “stop posting species adopts!” or “lower your prices!” so that’s not something that needs to be brought up. so, whether or not you continue to post species adopts is your business. I’m positive that plenty of people adore them and are eating them up like candy. but, coming from a rare non-species lover, it does get tiring to trudge through all those horned bases and eye bleed neons to find some actual content.

don’t get me wrong, I’m not against species, per se. but I am against them being on WA. they don’t serve any actual purpose to the fandom in terms of relevancy. in most cases at least. and while I do applaud the creativity, the uniqueness and the overall joy it brings to the table, I just think that they’d be better off elsewhere. this is not a cat amino. this is a warriors amino. meaning we are only inclusive of cats pertaining to the warriors fandom for validated use in the community. validated use consists of realistic role playing, realistic story writing, realistic artistry and/or realistic character development by any means. so, looking outside of species, any unrealistic characters are still fine for the community because they cannot actually be implimented into WA in the ways that species can for their unnatural complexions. the only reason species are justified for their unnatural complexions is because of loopholes that make them seem relevant and viable for validated use, simple because they are completely feline in the genetic sense.

I hope that paragraph made sense, shit got a little complex right there. but, anyways, I’d like to reiterate relevancy. again. because I don’t see anyone giving up their species on WA for the sake of being canonically relevant because they’re going to find some off the wall way to make their quirky cats seem applicable. to be fair, I wouldn’t want to give up by hard earned creation so easily either. but there ARE other places to take them. and it isn’t up to us to figure out where, it’s up to the species owners. so it’s not like the species would be thrown out altogether, it would just be the irrelevant ones. and the relevant ones would be required to ACTUALLY abide by the guidelines instead of finding loopholes or countering valid points as to how their species are not canonically derived with “they lives in clans.” again, sorry if this paragraph was hard to follow. I’m perfectly fine with clearing up any misunderstandings in those last two paragraphs^^

so, to sum up, I believe the guidelines should be fixed and species should be properly mandated to abide by these new guidelines in order to ensure ACTUAL relevancy. I don’t like species. I don’t want anything to do with them. but I like that they bring a new sense of community and likeness to WA. and I don’t give a rats ass if you choose to associate with them. I personally believe that NONE of the species have any place on WA, but that would be unfair of me, wouldn’t it. so, I did my best to accommodate rationality in this entry, and I apologize if I came off as a stuck up bitch at any point. it wasn’t my intention, but I sure it did happen at some point.

oh, and let me derail any “WA would be boring if it were 100% relevant” arguments. because firstly, it WAS 100% relevant when it first started out, and it thrived. secondly, no where did I claim that species need to be 100% relevant. I made it very clear that it was the lore and the traits that needed to match up to accommodate the terms of relevancy. and thirdly, even on the off chance that species were subtracted from the equation, there are still plenty of other aspects that leave WA out of the running for total relevancy. thank you for coming to my ted talk, have a nice day loves <3

This week delivered a pretty harsh emotional gut-punch. I had to end the only non-family friendship I had where the person in question lived within a 100mi radius.

She and I had been growing apart for a bit as it was--the way I saw it was that we simply had become two different people than when we first met online back in 2014. We'd exchanged emails for the longest time, and met once at a convention. She was someone who'd been easy to relate to and understand at first because of a traumatic upbringing, but the substance of her messages never changed or varied throughout the years--it was always, always about who had wronged her this time and why it was evidence of how terrible people are, but how she was "hardworking" and "different". We scarcely talked about anything else. Victim mentality. The one time we met only solidified that this was who she was. Imagine someone side-eying perfect strangers in a crowd of cosplayers and constantly grumbling about how they were too scantily clad and making remarks about how sure she was her favorite character would disapprove. (Yes, there was a concerning disconnect from reality there that often made me wonder if there was something schizoid-flavored going on.) Suggesting that she could do anything differently or an alternative point of view was usually met with a lot of reaching and bending over backwards for reasons why nothing was ever her fault or how it was someone else who had to change.

In short, it wasn't commiserating. It was years of me reading long screeds, and going, "Yeah. Uh huh. That sucks." Most of the time, if I brought up any complaint of my own, it was met not with compassion, but with either dismissal so that we could focus on her again, or more ranting about how it was all just more evidence of how right she was. Even just attempts at sharing new interests resulted in a sort of pushback where she'd barely stop short of telling me I was wrong or somehow treacherous for doing so. Trying to share good news always prompted her to double down on refocusing on how awful everything was for her.

As we got into the vile meat of 2020, my energy to respond to long-form emails was pretty well shot, and my responses had slowed down substantially. She started to badger me with the question, "What am I to you?" I explained that I felt our attitudes and values had seriously diverged over the years, and that my stress level was simply too high, but that if she still wanted to keep in touch, it was a better idea to message me here on tumblr or just text my phone. I have no issue having quick back-and-forths, and little to no restrictions on when it's okay to message me. As a general rule, I answer as soon as I see it. This seemed like it would solve the problem with the lapses at least, and communicating in a way that offered instant responses should have provided reassurance that I wasn't just ignoring her. Yes, we had our differences, but for the most part, I was unresponsive to the emails because I was having a hard time with my own mental health.

Should have. She agreed to respect the boundary I'd set, but then unfollowed me here and sent a long paper letter instead--the furthest thing from what I'd requested. She then would only message in months-apart check-ins to see if I'd read the letter yet, growing increasingly aggravated when I had not. At one point, she explained that it was meant to reveal to me how much she'd accomplished, and how I was wrong about her, and also contained a poem she wanted me to read aloud to my household. The hysteric "What am I to you?" questions continued.

After deliberating, I explained why the letter and her related actions had upset me. She said that she'd unfollowed (without even trying to message at first) me because she suspected I wanted nothing to do with her. She then also insisted that she'd sent the letter before unfollowing, complained about how badly she missed the email routine, and went on a tirade about how unfair it was she was the only one reaching out, and how she'd done so much more for me, and so forth. It essentially devolved into overt gaslighting.

It was then that I calmly told her that I felt it was probably best for us to leave one another in peace. Those were my exact words. If we couldn't even agree on how to talk without an explosion of manufactured drama--if she couldn't be bothered to respect one simple ask without making herself out to be a victim of unfair treatment--then there was nothing left to say. She responded saying that she was even more afraid I wanted nothing to do with her--at this point, it had become true--and again demanding to know what she'd ever really been to me.

I had had enough. I blocked her.

Two days later, I got one last email from her, and a phone call with no message. (Or I certainly hope it's the last. Good grief.) In it, she reiterated her belief that she'd been the one pouring all the effort into our relationship, how this confirmed I was 'just like everyone else', and that she wasn't going to let herself be hurt by me anymore.

And...I've been feeling like complete garbage ever since. Not so much because I felt it was time to end that friendship--the descent into blatant gaslighting was all I needed to push the proverbial EJECT button--but I’m left questioning why I tend to attract that sort of person more than any other--selfish, histrionic, delusional. Making and maintaining friendships is difficult for me, so the question of how I might have done anything differently has to be asked. The simple answer, I believe, is that I should have just been open about my disagreements and our incompatibility much sooner. But even with more emotionally mature individuals, I do have an unfortunate track record of lapsing into silence unless spoken to when I'm overly stressed, and I know that can send the wrong message. I don't want to be that person who does nothing but use the other as a doormat for continual complaining and nothing but. I don't want to burden anyone the way this person burdened me.

That's the emotional backlash I always face when a friendship fails because of toxic behavior: Is it possible that this same toxicity lives in me too, and I'm just too myopic or self-righteous to see it? Is it possible that this is why being any kind of a social person is so challenging to me? I don't think so, but what if I'm wrong? What if I'm reading my own tone wrong? What if I'm measuring the content of my conversations with others in a way that minimizes exactly how much self-centered bitching I do? Do I come off as someone with a victim complex?

I find myself coming back to the damaging, impossibly mixed messaging around socializing I was raised with. If I share what's good or fun, that could be selfish because what if the other person is having a hard time? What if I'm just rubbing something in their face they can't have? If I what I share is sad and difficult, I may be overburdening them or dragging them down when they'd otherwise be doing just fine. Sometimes just talking at all feels invasive--that is, attempting to get to know or draw closer to another person makes me feel like I'm stealing something that doesn't belong to me. I was always told that it's rude to pry, and that if others really want to talk to me specifically, they will without prompt.

In sum, these 'rules' allow for zero proactive communication, suggesting that any such effort is doomed to be bothersome and thoughtless at best. Of course, I don't buy into them anymore, but that doesn't mean that they aren't engraved into my psyche in such a way that violating them still comes with a serious wallop of guilt.

And as folks with a history of emotional abuse go, there do tend to be extremes of embracing victimhood as an identity, low-key messiah complexes, and what have you. I absolutely am guilty of nursing one of those soft-core messiah complexes, I think. Unfortunately, this means that when someone comes along with no end of narcissistic self pity--that is, not just someone truly down on their luck-- it's an easy trap for me to fall into. I always see it as my role to fix things for people or to try save them from their troubles, or to be the one who listens and gives. I want to be useful and relied upon and a source of comfort, understanding, and peace, but then I want to act all surprised when I get used and stepped on time and again when I fail to be 100% honest about any frustrations or misgivings I might have. By the time I decide to set any real boundaries, it’s far too late to maneuver out from under unreasonable expectations without snuffing out the relationship altogether.

When someone with a baby savior complex clashes with another person who possesses a loud-and-proud victim mentality, I suppose it's bound to be a slow-moving train wreck.

Maybe I'm not like her, but I can't escape the fact that in many ways, I really did bring this upon myself...Again.

---

TL;DR: I asked for some minor changes in how I communicate with a friend because my stress level was so high that the idea of jumping off a local overpass wasn’t not bouncing around in my head. Her response? Act like a jilted lover, thinking only- “But what about me?” And I realized it’s been that way with her for a long time.